ILNews

Lawmakers taking second look at 'second chance law'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Legislators want to take a second look at a new law passed this year that gives Indiana residents with nonviolent criminal histories a chance to limit public access to parts of their record.

The Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee met Thursday and discussed possible changes to the new law that the Indiana General Assembly passed in the final days of the 2011 session.

Known as the “second chance” law, House Enrolled Act 1211 allows individuals convicted of certain offenses that weren’t violent or sex crimes to request from the courts restricted access to arrest and criminal records after eight years. The new law is limited to misdemeanors and Class D felonies, and it only limits access rather than expunging a person’s record completely. The statute also allows for limited record access if the person wasn’t prosecuted, if the charges were dismissed or if the case resulted in acquittal.

But since the law took effect July 1, the legal community has been confused about how the changes should be implemented. Judges have delayed making decisions on those requests for closed access to arrest records until they received more direction, and prosecutors and defense attorneys have directed questions to lawmakers.

The Indiana Supreme Court’s Division of State Court Administration has received questions from trial judges and clerks about the logistics of restricting access to public records, according to court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan. She said the court has added a new chapter to the Administrative Manual about navigating this new statute, and the courts also developed and posted online a form that could be used by pro se litigants.

“Our goal is to give judges and clerks meaningful direction on how to make daily court operations run smoothly while following the law,” Dolan said.

At its most recent meeting on Thursday, the interim legislative panel discussed fixing the inconsistencies in the statute. Draft legislation is being finalized and likely will be discussed again at the next meeting Oct. 26, according to committee members.

Some discussion points at the meeting: Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville, noted that felons could be admitted as lawyers in the state because they would not have to disclose their prior crimes that are sealed through this law. David Powell, recently appointed as the executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, said schools should be allowed to access these records when running criminal background checks on prospective employees.

Indiana Public Defender Council Executive Director Larry Landis said he supports the current law because its aim of shielding these records was a compromise in the larger debate about expunging the convictions altogether. But he agrees the law is inconsistent, and that’s what the draft legislation focuses on. Those revisions are intended to clarify what goes into a petition requesting this limited access and who should get notice of this petition and order once it’s filed, as well as what a court should order about who needs to comply with the restricted access. One aspect also involves making the petition itself confidential, Landis said.

“We wouldn’t be reopening discussion about any substantive policy issues, but just clarifying and making the law more specific on how it should be implemented,” he said.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Second chance act
    This was a loosely defined law that was passed by legislators for wanting to look compassionate to a very vocal group. No more no less. Its amazing the people of this state pay to have its leaders not take this "dangerous" legislation to a completed thought. But what makes it more disturbing? Is they did this lackedaisical process with so much of the states residents safety and security at risk.
  • Second chance Felony law
    Is there forms online to fill out to if anybody's eligible for ?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT